[cryptome] Re: Geography south of Syria

From: John Young <jya@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:07:25 -0400

Repugnant war mongering. These besotted militarists just
cannot forego the loss of demonstrable might in South Asia,
Middle East, North Africa and cloaked special ops elsewhere.
Weak-minded national leaders are never happier than when
a war is going on -- or threatened now endlessly -- to lift them
above cheap shit domestic squabbling. Under wartime
conditions anything can be done, fuck law, fuck public
opinion, but really fuck those condemned to lethal
obliteration by Bollywood-scripted exhibitions of
"leadership."
So long as we demonstrate our mighty willful seduction,
invited fucking, by media generation of hot blooded
vicariousness the militarists will reign and rain death on
those we pornographically pretend to care about.
Every story and link posted here about Syria is raw
porn inspired, nothing more popular on and off the
internet than wanking at people being slaughtered.
A grand military tradition to which we phlap in thrall.
At 07:08 AM 8/30/2013, you wrote:

All these links were stories published before
British Parliament vetoed Britains involvement in attacks against Syria.
As usual, some stories may be designed for some
audiences, describing a story other than the whole truth.

Since the British vote, I have seen stories where:

* French President says they are still with
USA, going to participate in any strikes against Syria.

Note speculation in this first BBC story that Jordan air bases could be used.

Note the 2 US aircraft carriers to the south
(USS Nimitz and Harry S Truman) & ask what path
they might follow when flying to Syria, assuming
any nation they fly over, other than Syria,
would be asked for fly-over permission, to avoid
a confrontation with that nation. Theres also
stealth and drones, where traditional logic,
dating back at least to the Pentagon Papers,
thinks plausible deniability is possible.

Theres a French aircraft carrier called Charles
de Gaulle, out of southern France. I have seen
in some news stories another air craft carrier
also there, labeled as being from Finland. I
suspect a misprint. I tend to wonder, how many
nations have aircraft carriers nowadays.

Not Jordan, per this Chinese news story.

<http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/video/2013-08/29/c_132672994.htm>http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/video/2013-08/29/c_132672994.htmThis site is worth noodling around other stories
to see if theres any new info regarding Chinas position beyond:
* China is pro-Assad, from Syrias
perspective their largest trade partner. China gets crude oil from Syria.
* China is utterly opposed to any nations
sovereignty being violated, except when China
is doing it, like recent disputes over territory now held by Japan and India.
* China will veto anything in UN which might
give cover to US attacks on Syria.
* China has been wagging finger at the US
saying not to attack Syria, but not being as
vociferous as Russia, Iran, Syria, and some other nations.

* I had heard other info, which I would like to see a confirmation on.
Not Egypt per same Chinese news site.

I have heard, from other stories, that Iraq is
now on same side as Iran & Syria in the Sunni 
Shiite divide, thanks to US recent memory regime
change in Iraq, not producing precisely the
results the US wanted regime changes almost
never do. I cant see Russias immediate
neighbors going against Russias Pro-Assad position.

So the only clear path, which makes any sense to
me, is over Saudi to where Israel has a port on
Red Sea, over Israel, then either Golan Heights
air space, or via Med to join RAF from Cyprus,
assuming Cyprus is still in the fight, with Britain out of it.

I was wondering if Saudis and any Gulf states
were going to be in US coalition, and what they
and Israel, and other Arab states, might think
about them being part of an air fleet flying
over Israel. I do not believe that would be politically expedient for them.